Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6324-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B NAME: G.C.C. Short -Form POD/Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Hwy. 10 at Sam Peck Road, north side of street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• E.W.I., Inc. White-Daters, Engineers 220 North Knoxville 401 Victory Street Russellville, AR 72801 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 968-5432 374-1666 AREA: 2.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: O-2/Change to POD ALLOWED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None/except PZD process is utilized here because the current 0-2 requires two acre minimum lot size. BACKGROUND• This application was filed to follow-up on a site plan review approved earlier this year. During the course of the review, the applicant was told that two lots could not be created due to the 0-2 district minimum two acre lot size. The site plan review was completed and there is construction beginning on the site. The owner was advised, the only way to replat the property and stay within the Hwy. 10 Overlay Guidelines is to do so as a POD. A. PROPOSAL• To replat the current 2.9 acre lot as a lot of 1.3059 acres and a lot of 1.645 acres. The site plan previously approved would remain unchanged and serve as the POD site plan. Therefore, the only reason for a PZD application is to create the substandard size lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has been cleared, graded and some construction activity has begun. FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and 5-978-B Cont.) C. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTENTS: None at this time. The Walton Heights Neighborhood Association was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: None E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer available - not adversely affected. Entergy: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required as a plat on east and north line. Water: The rear lot cannot receive water service without a water main extension. Private on-site hydrants will be required. A pro rata front footage charge of $15.00 per front foot applies on Cantrell Road. Fire Department: OK as submitted. CATA: Served by Hwy. 10 express only, no all day service. F. PLANNING DIVISION: Use wise it is in conformance. However, it appears to be a means of getting around the Overlay District. Care should be given to signage if approved and reduce to assure overall goal. G. LANDSCAPE: No additional comment. This was resolved on the prior site plan review. Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan H. ANALYSIS• There is little more to be said on this issue. It comes to a matter of the Commission deciding whether it is appropriate to further reduce the platted lot. The proper time we feel would have been when the church plat was created and perhaps enough land could have been added to make two lots on this corner. Typically, along Hwy. 10 the sites approved less than two acres were pre-existing and PZD was offered to allow development as nonresidential. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the application. E FILE NO.: z -6324-A and S -978-B (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White was present, representing the applicant. Staff presented its comments which were few in as much as the plat is in good form and the site plan is not proposed for change. The discussion centered on the only issue of substance and that being the creation of a second lot on this parcel and that action creating two lots below the minimum Hwy. 10 Overlay District size of 2 acres. Staff and Committee felt that this is a matter for the full Commission to debate and determine. It is not a typical site design issue. Therefore, the issue is forwarded for commission resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Chairman asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to present this item and the staff recommendation. Richard Wood identified this application as an amendment to a previous site plan review in an 0-2 office District which is now proposed to be a Planned Office Development with a 2 lot replat of the current lot. wood stated that the staff view of this application is that it is inappropriate in as much as the Commission reviewed and approved a subdivision of this property at such time as the church on the rear of the site created two front parcels. These parcels were created at 2+ acres each in order to meet the Hwy. 10 Design Standards. Staff feels that is the appropriate level for limit. At the conclusion of Wood's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked Joe White, the agent for the application, to come forward and present his case. Mr. White's comments were generally in line with those offered by the staff, except that the owner of this property desires to separate these lots for purposes of selling the rear most building and the practical effect of the plat will not be visually noticed on the development. Mr. White stated that the site plan will not be changed and that all of the requirements that were placed on the property in the site plan review process remain and will be adhered to. He stated that to accomplish what the owner wants to do is to simply strike a line diagonally across the property through a parking lot to create separate lots. At the conclusion of Mr. White's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked if there was any one else who wished to address this issue. At this point, Commissioner Putnam offered comments. The comments basically dealing with the location of various uses or structures about the site. He indicated that it was already pretty much surrounded with development. He stated that he felt that if they complete the project as it was approved in phases 1 and 2, then everything will remain the same except that you will have a lot line which is not visible traversing the site. Mr. Putnam stated that even though we have a 2 acre limitation, we are allowing 3 FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and 5-978-8 Cont. them to build two buildings there and it somewhat penalizes them with respect to leasing or selling. Following the conclusion of Commissioner Putnam's remarks, Commissioner Berry offered that it was his inclination at this point to go ahead and approve the two lots. However, the owner with the 2 acre parcel developing a portion of it and retaining a piece for later sale, he felt might be creating a precedent here. At this point, Jim Lawson, of the Staff, posed a question to the Commission. What if in this situation the two lots were created with a provision that no additional buildings be constructed on the site and would that work? At the conclusion of Lawson's comments, the Chairman asked Mr. Joe White his reaction to this statement. Mr. White stated that he was completely receptive to the idea and at this point a motion was attempted to approve it in such fashion as the staff and Mr. White had discussed. Prior to action on the motion, Richard Wood pointed out this was rezoning and a POD application would reclassify it from the current 0-2 zoning and would create the plat as well. Therefore, two motions are required at this point. The Chairman recognized Mr. Hugh Earnest for comment. Mr. Earnest offered additional comments following up on Commissioner Berry's statement about precedent. He concluded his statement by saying that the Hwy. 10 Overlay District was a long hard fought issue to develop the design standards that we have or we should be cautious. Commissioner Putnam responded to that statement by saying that is what the Commission is here for, to guard against precedent and such. This statement led to a discussion between staff and commissioners concerning lease vs. owner occupied buildings. Lawson's closing remark was that he felt if we do this, it would be all right so long as we make reference in these minutes that this is not setting a precedent. Although we make this record if someone comes in the future with a parcel with two buildings and want to split it up, he did not find a problem with that. At this point, Commissioner Adcock was recognized and she made a statement asking if the Walton Height's people had responded to this issue. Staff responded by saying they were notified but they did not respond. The Chairman then addressed the floor and stated that two motions are now needed. The first one being the rezoning of the property to POD and then the second motion to approve the replat. Commissioner Putnam then offered a motion to the effect that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the POD for this lot. The motion was seconded. The vote taken reflected a vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The POD application was denied. For the record, the Chairman stated that the application failed for a lack of affirmative 6 votes. The Chairman then posed a question of staff as to whether or not the motion was required at this point on the platting. Richard Wood indicated that the plat would not function without the POD. It is an integral part; therefore, the motion should 4 FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B (Cont.) not be made. For the record the Chairman noted there would be no vote on the platting element of this application. August 7, 1997 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B NAME: G.C.C. Short -Form POD/Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Hwy. 10 at Sam Peck Road, north side of street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• E.W.I., Inc. White-Daters, Engineers 220 North Knoxville 401 Victory Street Russellville, AR 72801 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 968-5432 374-1666 AREA: 2.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-2/Change to POD ALLOWED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None/except PZD process is utilized here because the current 0-2 requires two acre minimum lot size. BACKGROUND• This application was filed to follow-up on a site plan review approved earlier this year. During the course of the review, the applicant was told that two lots could not be created due to the 0-2 district minimum two acre lot size. The site plan review was completed and there is construction beginning on the site. The owner was advised, the only way to replat the property and stay within the Hwy. 10 Overlay Guidelines is to do so as a POD. A. PROPOSAL• To replat the current 2.9 acre lot as a lot of 1.3059 acres and a lot of 1.645 acres. The site plan previously approved would remain unchanged and serve as the POD site plan. Therefore, the only reason for a PZD application is to create the substandard size lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has been cleared, graded and some construction activity has begun. August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5324-A and S -978-B C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this time. The Walton Heights Neighborhood Association was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: None E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer available - not adversely affected. Entergy: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Hell: Easements required as a plat on east and north line. Water: The rear lot cannot receive water service without a water main extension. Private on-site hydrants will be required. A pro rata front footage charge of $15.00 per front foot applies on Cantrell Road. Fire Department: OK as submitted. CATA: Served by Hwy. 10 express only, no all day service. F. PLANNING DIVISION: Use wise it is in conformance. However, it appears to be a means of getting around the Overlay District. Care should be given to signage if approved and reduce to assure overall goal. G. LANDSCAPE: No additional comment. This was resolved on the prior site plan review. Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan H. ANALYSIS• There is little more to be said on this issue. It comes to a matter of the Commission deciding whether it is appropriate to further reduce the platted lot. The proper time we feel would have been when the church plat was created and perhaps enough land could have been added to make two lots on this corner. Typically, along Hwy. 10 the sites approved less than two acres were pre-existing and PZD was offered to allow development as nonresidential. 2 August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White was present, representing the applicant. Staff presented its comments which were few in as much as the plat is in good form and the site plan is not proposed for change. The discussion centered on the only issue of substance and that being the creation of a second lot on this parcel and that action creating two lots below the minimum Hwy. 10 Overlay District size of 2 acres. Staff and Committee felt that this is a matter for the full Commission to debate and determine. It is not a typical site design issue. Therefore, the issue is forwarded for commission resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Chairman asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to present this item and the staff recommendation. Richard Wood identified this application as an amendment to a previous site plan review in an 0-2 Office District which is now proposed to be a Planned Office Development with a 2 lot replat of the current lot. Wood stated that the staff view of this application is that it is inappropriate in as much as the Commission reviewed and approved a subdivision of this property at such time as the church on the rear of the site created two front parcels. These parcels were created at 2+ acres each in order to meet the Hwy. 10 Design Standards. Staff feels that is the appropriate level for limit. At "the conclusion of Wood's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked Joe White, the agent for the application, to come forward and present his case. Mr. White's comments were generally in line with those offered by the staff, except that the owner of this property desires to separate these lots for purposes of selling the rear most building and the practical effect of the plat will not be visually noticed on the development. Mr. White stated that the site plan will not be changed and that all of the requirements that were placed on the property in the site plan review process remain and will be adhered to. He stated that to accomplish what the owner wants to do is to simply strike a line diagonally across the property through a parking lot to create separate lots. At the conclusion of Mr. White's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked if there was any one else who wished to address this issue. At 3 August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5324-A and 5-978-B this point, Commissioner Putnam offered comments. The comments basically dealing with the location of various uses or structures about the site. He indicated that it was already pretty much surrounded with development. He stated that he felt that if they complete the project as it was approved in phases 1 and 2, then everything will remain the same except that you will have a lot line which is not visible traversing the site. Mr. Putnam stated that even though we have a 2 acre limitation, we are allowing them to build two buildings there and it somewhat penalizes them with respect to leasing or selling. Following the conclusion of Commissioner Putnam's remarks, Commissioner Berry offered that it was his inclination at this point to go ahead and approve the two lots. However, the owner with the 2 acre parcel developing a portion of it and retaining a piece for later sale, he felt might be creating a precedent here. At this point, Jim Lawson, of the Staff, posed a question to the Commission. What if in this situation the two lots were created with a provision that no additional buildings be constructed on the site and would that work? At the conclusion of Lawson's comments, the Chairman asked Mr. Joe White his reaction to this statement. Mr. White stated that he was completely receptive to the idea and at this point a motion was attempted to approve it in such fashion as the staff and Mr. White had discussed. Prior to action on the motion, Richard Wood pointed out this was rezoning and a POD application would reclassify it from the current 0-2 zoning and would create the plat as well. Therefore, two motions are required at this point. The Chairman recognized Mr. Hugh Earnest for comment. Mr. Earnest offered additional comments following up on Commissioner Berry's statement about precedent. He concluded his statement by saying that the Hwy. 10 Overlay District was a long hard fought issue to develop the design standards that we have or we should be cautious. Commissioner Putnam responded to that statement by saying that is what the Commission is here for, to guard against precedent and such. This statement led to a discussion between staff and commissioners concerning lease vs. owner occupied buildings. Lawson's closing remark was that he felt if we do this, it would be all right so long as we make reference in these minutes that this is not setting a precedent. Although we make this record if someone comes in the future with a parcel with two buildings and want to split it up, he did not find a problem with that. At this point, Commissioner Adcock was recognized and she made a statement asking if the Walton Height's people had responded to this issue. Staff responded by saying they were notified but they did not respond. The Chairman then addressed the floor and stated that two motions are now needed. The first one being the rezoning of the property to POD and then the second motion to 4 August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B approve the replat. Commissioner Putnam then offered a motion to the effect that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the POD for this lot. The motion was seconded. The vote taken reflected a vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The POD application was denied. For the record, the Chairman stated that the application failed for a lack of affirmative 6 votes. The Chairman then posed a question of staff as to whether or not the motion was required at this point on the platting. Richard Wood indicated that the plat would not function without the POD. It is an integral part; therefore, the motion should not be made. For the record the Chairman noted there would be no vote on the platting element of this application. �1